The Bright Skies

^ yeah like getting air into Russia. You can get USA into russia from scotland with bombers. It is a solid method.

As a friend of mine has rather painfully demonstrated at my expense, Russia getting into Scandinavia can be devastating for Germany, and in principle I think it’s fine to build up the American bomber force to as many as 8 bombers, and then send it to kill the German Baltic fleet and/or the Italian Med fleet. Certainly it’s easier for Russia to grab Scandinavia if the Baltic fleet is sunk.

But this whole idea of building nothing but bombers with the USA for 5+ turns strikes me as way overblown, for some of the reasons Afrikakorps has been pointing out. If Britain focuses on Italy while the USA sends bombers to Europe, then Japan is free to annihilate China and capture India. A stack of bombers is not going to be enough to contain a Japan that has already taken out China and India – the USA just doesn’t earn enough to trade bombers against Japanese mechanized infantry.

On the other hand, if Britain builds a Persia factory and uses it to send troops east, builds ships in South Africa, sends fighters to India, etc., then Italy is free to take north Africa, clear the Med, and use the resulting cash to send mechs and tanks east to Stalingrad and the Caucasus. At that point, Italy is pulling in 32+ IPCs per turn, and so even if Germany is only collecting 40 IPCs and losing 10 of those to strategic bombing, then the Euroaxis are still substantially out-earning Russia even if Russia is holding Scandinavia. Russia’s not strong enough to hold out against the Euroaxis in that situation, and will be slowly pushed back – and, meanwhile, Japan’s probably not doing so badly. Sure, the pressure on land from UK Pacific, Russia, and China is formidable and will help to keep Japan in check, but without the need to spend heavily in the water to counter a growing US Pacific fleet, Japan can afford to fight all of the eastern Allied powers at once.

My point is that it’s probably a good idea to build a US bomber fleet in many games – perhaps a much better idea than this forum has traditionally believed – but even a really good US tactic is not the same thing as a “silver bullet” that can knock the Axis out of the game. All three Axis powers still have to be contained. A bomber fleet can contain Germany if it’s sent to kill the Baltic fleet, or it can contain Italy if it’s sent to kill the Med fleet, but you can’t kill both fleets fast enough to contain both Euroaxis, and that means at least one Axis power will be left unchecked unless America follows up on the initial bombing rush with an actual naval buildup.

Taking Scandinavia with Russia is very effective against novice opponents; against more seasoned players any attempt to do that will just result in stranded Russian ground units who get easily crushed by the Germans with minimal losses.  Any units that are lost with little gained in return will lead to a huge swing in the Moscow calculations for turns 6-8.  I am smiling from ear to ear when I see the Allies throwing away units in Europe during the first four turns.

I have lost finland/norway to Russia with Germany, I ignored them and took Russia G5. It was funny. I got to admit.

You get more mileage out of bombers than boats and oceans. Think about it, you get 4 transport 8 inf, then you have to protect it so what do you do? Say Germany is light on air and is sending it East anyway. 3 dd carrier 2 fighter. now time for some math.

28 + 18 +16 + 20 = 84. 84 ipc = 7 bombers. Hmm, suddenly 7 bombers seems pretty awesome.  This is the reason you seldom see G1 navy buys anymore, because it just gets blasted.

Speaking about G1 Navy builds, I have seen Adam play very successful League matches with a fleet being created on his first round.  He usually moves it down to Gibraltar on G2 and then over to the Med on G3.  He has mastered the strategy, allowing him to deliver key attacks into the Middle East or Africa.  It also discourages the Allies from building a minimally-defended fleet and getting it into the Med.  I can’t repeat it with his level of execution, of course, but I wouldn’t say that G1 Navy is a crazy idea.

So he DOWs J3? or Normandy to pass through gibraltar?

@Cow:

So he DOWs J3? or Normandy to pass through gibraltar?

Hmm, must be a strong enough fleet to defend against the USN. Can’t build in Normandy G1.

Interesting idea.

I think it’s about building fleet in G1 and taking Normandy G1. In G2 you can position at SZ110 or SZ105 and, because of the naval base at Normandy, travel in G3 passing Gibraltar to SZ92. So there seems to be the possibility of DOW G2 i.e. without the need to stay under fire at SZ91 - of course under the condition that Italy takes and hold Gibraltar.

I hope ABH explains more how the German Navy steams into the Med to create havoc.

But hecatomb I think the German Navy needs to go right to SZ91 on G2 and take it (if Italy didn’t). Sitting in SZ110 risks a blockade by the US Navy. Of course if the US is not in the war than either or doesn’t matter. I personally would not want to J3 attack with Japan just to let the German Navy slip into the Med.

If Germany does not get Cairo for the 2+5 NO (and the chance to grow from there), the cost of the Navy isn’t worth it. ABH describes games with Adam where it does pay off which is why I hope to hear more. If Italy gets Cairo, that’s second best. Germany getting Cairo would really make Germany great again!

The first part is pretty sound; don’t forget however that placement in Scotland or Iceland is probably stronger than London, because you can fly direct.

I personally prefer going the other direction, to Buryatia?  Best option is 1 further move to Moscow.  Moscow guys can protect the bombers, wherever they land.

You do have some ambitious plans, against my buddy Maphead, with Russia, all I can do is protect Moscow.  He attacks on G2 and by G4 the can-opener means I cant stack anywhere.  I consider it a success if he is dissuaded from taking Leningrad until G3, then I run like heck.  The only clear conservative play is to buy primarily infantry, and have the other allies provide the rest.  You cant lure a charging rhino hes coming right at you and every other direction at the same time.  G5-G6 its time for dice or die.

That is a valid point Afrikakorps. Thanks for the strategy input.

USSR is rarely strong enough to do that.

If you try that, you might find that Germany simply walks past your Leningrad stack.

And that is an extremely valid point too. Germany can easily just move through the south and hit Moscow. Then you would be left with a situation where Russia might control Scan, and Germany just mops up the rest of Russia. With refinement, this strategy could work, but its difficult to stop a straight forward attack from Germany. Especially if they are implementing SBRs.

@Afrikakorps:

I just realized the strategic strength of Bryansk again, with just the traditional Russian force of artillery and infantry this is very strong. With mechanized infantry instead of normal one you actually cover all of Russia and only need two stacks: Novgorod + Bryansk. The Bryansk stack can also include some basic infantry as it is able to retreat directly into Moscow.

I am forming a theoretical framework that reduces the dynamics of the board into principles that guide the formation of strategies. I began writing an article on it, but I’m not sure when it will be finished. Here is an excerpt from what I’ve written that I think explains why your dual stack Russian defense isn’t a good idea.

"Still, to help focus the discussion, let us give words to these concepts:

The force principle: powers must have superior force to win engagements
The economy principle: powers must have superior resource production to obtain superior force

Notice that these principles balance each other - the focus of one is always the pursuit of the other. The Allies, with a superior economy, must try to obtain a force advantage, and the Axis, with superior force, must try to obtain an economic advantage. In the actual war, and in many previous iterations of Axis & Allies, the economy principle gave an advantage to the Allies because the Axis had to work to take territory while the Allies could bide their time and build up their force.

Now let us try to quantify this new, less intuitive principle that seems to give an edge to the Axis in the 1940 series of games:

The mobility principle: mobility allows powers to determine where engagements will occur

Mobility in the 1940 games, and especially in Global 1940 (which we will focus on from here forward), is the wild card. It trumps both economy and force. The choice of where to engage enables the power with superior mobility to select only those engagements where it will enjoy the greatest tactical advantage or those that will benefit it the most economically, meaning that mobility can translate either to force or economy."

The argument I make following these observations is that it’s better for the defending force to take two separate and equal positions that will almost, but not quite hold than one position that will definitely hold. One example of equal positions would be London and Moscow. You’d rather make Germany fight for whichever one he wants than pick one to save and let him walk in to the other. Another example would be over on the Pacific side. It’s better to push suicidal Allied stacks at Japan from all sides than to retreat and let him have territory.

The Russian dual stack defense is different, because they aren’t equal positions. Moscow is obviously more important. Defending less important territory will just make your opponent all the more eager to press for your capital.